worst LR question ever

ucsblaw8

Failure to rotate crops depletes the soil's nutrients gradually unless other preventive measures are taken. If the soil's nutrients are completely depleted, additional crops cannot be grown unless fertilizer is applied to the soil. All other things being equal, if vegetables are grown in soil that has had fertilizer applied rather than being grown in non-fertilized soil, they are more vulnerable to pests and, as a consequence, must be treated with larger amounts of pesticides. The more pesticides used in vegatables, the greater the health risks to humans from eating those vegetables.

Suppose there were some vegetables that were grown in soil to which fertilizer had never been applied. On the basis of the passage, which one of the following would have to be true regarding those vegetables?

C) The vegetables were grown in soil that had not been completely depleted of nutrients but not necessarily soil in which crops had been rotated.

Do I need to do diagraming for this question? I wasted so much time on this damn problem

A.J.-the real A.J

Alright here is the deal. You know that no fertilizer has been applied and that crops have grown. This means that on the basis of the second statement the soil cannot have been completely depleated. That is the key to the whole thing. The fact that crops were or were not rotated may not be important because we only no that nutrients would be depleated only gradually if they were not.

A.J.-the real A.J

ucsblaw8

ya, I can see how I can approach this problem without using LSAT formal logic, but I guess my problem was that I approached it incorrectly in the first place. Whenever I have to breakdown a long stimulus I get flustered. I should be good though, thanks